joel_matherson

<p>This looks like a reasonable product. The MS Optical conversion is more expensive and a more quirky barrel and aperture arrangement, whereas this one looks almost like a conventional Leica lens. Its a niche product that people wont buy as their first and only 40mm lens. Theres a ready supply of junk cameras to provide donor lenses. Its not going to sell in mass numbers but its priced to satisfy enough sales to warrant its manufacture. As a collector of 40mm lens I must admit I put my order in already. :-) <br /> Hint: Tell your other half "No this isnt another lens its just a spare part that allows you to salvage part of that old camera thats broken in the cupboard rather than throw the whole thing away and loose money. This is recycling I promise!"</p>

<p>Haze with this lens is unfortunately more common than it should be. Circumstantial evidence from users point to the likely cause being some kind of emissions given off by the vinyl lens case that come with it. Although not definitive at this point I suggest just to be safe keeping the lens stored elsewhere away from the original case. (Thats if you are able to get it cleaned) Like Raid suggests Its quite a valuable lens and well worth sending it to a professional.</p>

<p>Its Plastic.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Hey Joel, I seem to remember you are the Minolta CLE enthusiast.... Greetings.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hey Ray, long tome no see. As the forum here dwindled I moved on to that other site that has a dedicated CLE section. Gone are the days you would get 30 new threads a day here unfortunately. Good to see you again.</p>

<p>There is a lot of negative comments on here to a reasonably logical thought. I have thought about the same thing. Leica is pretty much the last bastion of a film camera company, it makes sense they may offer such an item given that Nikon and Minolta have given up on that market. My Minolta died a number of months back and is irreparable, goodness Konica-Minolta as a camera company doesnt even exist anymore. Sure Leica probably couldnt make the thing themselves but they could oversee a third party to ensure that the quality is up to scratch. Dont tell me that quite a number of Leica fanatics that already have a good film scanner wouldnt try a Leica one (admit it you know what we're like!). The market is small but its there and that is where Leica chooses its market in small niches. There is no real competition for a high end amateur film scanner. Having looked for a replacement with whats on the on the market these days all I could find new are the cheaper Plustek type or a second hand one that could well pack it in like my old one. So yes I think there may be a market there and Im actually there looking right now for one for myself.</p>

<p><em>"They are the Rokkor-M lenses and they were made in Wetzlar like the Elmar-C. These have a series 5.5 filter. The later Rokkors are for the CLE and they have the 40.5 filter thread. They have the same optics, but the later CLE lenses do not have the special cam that was designed specifically for use with the CL"</em></p>

<p>Sorry but this information is inaccurate. Its true the first Rokkor 90mm was made by Leitz and is so marked BUT it does not use Series 5.5 filters like a previous poster has stated. BOTH Rokkors (German and later Japanese made) used 40.5mm filters.</p>

<p>So to they do NOT have same optics as started in others posts. Its true that the share a similar 4 element in 4 group design however Minolta changed the design for the CLE version. The CL Wetzlar version has greater center sharpness which weakens at the edges while the Minolta design does not have as great a center sharpness but is slighter better in the corners giving it a more even sharpness across its entire field. This can be demonstrated by resolution tests in their day but in real world use unless you took the same photo with each lens side by side as users have stated you would be hard pressed to tell the difference. My advice on which to purchase is the one you get at the best price.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I didn't want to get into the minutia (I thought I'd said too much already), but yes, you are <em>partly</em> correct. The 90 and 40 C lenses were built by Leitz in Wetzlar, Germany, but the corresponding Minolta Rokkor branded lenses were built by Minolta in Japan. These corresponding lenses were identical in lens formula (designed by Leitz, Germany for the Leitz/Minolta CL). Only the lens coatings were different (in this case, Minolta used multi-coatings while Leitz used single coatings).</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />This isnt quite correct. The first 40mm and 90mm Rokkors for the Leitz/Minolta CL were not multicoated only the later CLE versions were. The first 90mm Rokkor wasnt just designed by Leitz but was made in Germany by Leitz Wetzlar so it coatings are identical to the Elmar-C. With the CL Summicron C and the CL Rokkor there was clearly some parts sharing. There are coating variations with the Summicron C but some of them have identical coatings to the first Rokkor that suggest some optic sharing on occasions as well. All the Leitz Minolta CL Rokkor 40mm f2's are single coated.<br>

<br />With respect to the original posting, yes the CL can focus the 40mm f1.4. The recommended extreme for the CL is a 50mm f2.0 for which it has framelines. A wider and faster lens like the 40mm f1.4 will be on the edge of its capabilities but if you take your time to focus like you would a 50mm at f2 you will be fine. The Nokton 40mm f1.4 makes the CL look like a bit of a beast.</p>

<p>I collect all 70's 35mm cameras that use 40mm lenses and have an example of each type of Rollei 40mm lens. Im guessing your older Canonet was a QL17 rather than a QL28. The 40mm Sonnar is a better lens than the Canon 40mm f1.7 but on average the Canon will give you a greater amount of sharper pictures. As others have pointed out the Rangefinder focus of the Canon makes a world of difference. I find the Sonnar is often not used to its full potential because of slightly off focus especially at closer distances and wide open. I disagree with the comment the Canon would be better for colour, colour shines with the Sonnar lens. The size and character are appealing with the Rollei and make them a favourite however. The ultra compact nature make them idea to carry everywhere but if the size isnt absolutely critical then go with something with a rangefinder. If you specifically want a Sonnar I would go with a Leica CL body and a 40mm Sonnar RF. Great compact combination and you have the bonus of interchangeable lenses, a rangefinder and your flash shoe on top.</p>

<p><em>"I assume the pre-asph is somewhat similar. I tried a 21 CV screwmount, and it certainly will do the job, but I feel it's fairly nondescript compared to the others. Pretty middle of the road contrast-wise, sharp but not as sharp as Leica or Zeiss."</em><br>

<em>-</em><br>

Sorry but that doesnt apply to the pre-asph. the Voigtlander is sharper than the pre-asph has less fall off, greater contrast and even has less distortion than the ASPH version. The pre-ASPH is a big lens with a 60mm filter front. When I acquired a Voigtlander in Nikon S mount I was so impressed that I sold the E60 21 and bought another Voigtlander for the M. If you want better than the Voigtlander then only the Leica ASPH or Zeiss offerings will do. Then again the Voigtlander is not that far behind the other 2 and its size proves to be a better compromise for some.</p>

<p>You can get Orion type adapters as Fred has pointed out and this will allow you to use any Nikon S or Contax Rangefinder lenses on Leica M (depending on the adapter you get), however they are often very expensive for what they are and I think you could probably find a LTM version of the 105 for not much more so thats the way that I would go. I have one of the generic orion type adapters that was made from old Kievs and it is a bit wobbly and not consistently smooth from minimum focus to infinity. The LTM version just require the very easy to obtain, and inexpensive LTM to M adapters that were made by Leica and many others including Voigtlander, this would also allow you to choose an adapter that brings up the framelines of your choice. Orion adapters are all set to bring up 50mm framelines.</p>

<p><em>"The guy that runs Cosina is obviously extremely capable, and has a great line of lenses and the cameras are nice, but he just dropped the ball, thinking he had nothing to learn from anyone, when it came to the shutter of his RF cameras. He could have fitted the Bessas with cloth shutters and damped down the cameras, but he figured it was not important."</em><br>

-<br>

Sorry but thats a bit over the top dont you think? How can you possibly know what considerations he made when deciding to create the range? I would think he most likely chose a shutter type he was already using to keep them in the target price point and that the metal curtains would be more reliable with less holes burnt in them. The fact that the later cameras are quieter than the earlier ones would seem that noise has been taken into account. But lets get things into perspective, they are quieter than most SLR's still. The emphasis on noise is not a concern most people have so I think the most reasonable compromise has been reached. As someone has suggested above if noise is that much of a problem for you even Leicas arent really the best there is, any one of the Leaf Shutter ranegfinders like the Canon QL-17, Minolta 7sii , Olympus 35RD etc are the way to go.<br>

<em><br /> </em></p>

<p>"Whatever you do, avoid Sigma. Its a shame you stick a Sigma on a Leica frankly."<br>

-<br>

Well given that Leica thought the Sigma 28-70 was good enough to bear the Leica name it would seem Leica themselves would disagree. The key to most brands is seek out the best lenses in their range. No single brand can claim their lenses of every focal length are better than everyone elses. In answer to the original question the Leica branded Minolta 70-210 I have seen go for 350 dollars in Mint condition, I would look out for one of them its a pretty good lens.</p>

<p>You can be surprised how long some camera stuff sits on shelves, even new stuff from the 50's. Sometimes Leica does use old packaging though. One example is that of the Canadian E60 21mm Elmarit. This lens was meant to have a 49mm filter front originally to which they decided to make it a larger E60 instead. But when you look at the box its has the E49 one pictured on the side so they already had the boxes printed and just used them! In your case Its odd the box doesnt have a serial number on it, that does make me suspicious, speak to the dealer he may have just made a mistake.</p>

<p>There is only one modern 40mm available in screw mount and thats the Rollei Sonnar 40mm f2.8. Its reasonably rare and more expensive compared to the other 40's. I agree with others get a R3 in M mount and get a matching Voigtlander 40mm f1.4. If you are only planning on having one lens you may as well get the fastest.</p>

<p><em>"You can manually indicate non-coded lenses from a list of older lenses, but the feature is not as well designed as the Nikon version. Each time you change to a new non-coded lens you have to go back into the entire list of lenses to find it again. Better than relying only on coded lenses though."</em></p>

<p>Did they add a manual profile for he 40mm Summicron? Probably not but still the best lens they ever made! (wink)</p>

<p>I would suggest you do another roll with the T5. The T3 has the fastest lens of the Yashica T series but it isnt to the standard of the lens in the T4/5 and the Contax. If you still decide to rule out the T5 then I would definitely go with the Contax. The T5 like the T3 is a great all weather go everywhere camera, places like sandy beaches or in the rain where I wouldnt consider taking the Contax T2, its great in these circumstances</p>

<p>"Leica being Leica, probably had slightly better quality control, were much more expensive (even on the same lens), and their lenses seem to be a little sharper wide open in most cases."</p>

 

<p>"Leica lenses may be a little sharper, but the difference is in color purity and saturation and contrast. You don`t need a loupe to see it. Spread them on a light table and anybody can pick out the Leica slides."</p>

<p>Sorry but Leica's quality control is not better than Minolta's was. When I sold both in my first job in the Manual Focus Days, Leicas came back alot more than Minoltas ever did. Minolta seem to also better Nikon and Canon in this area. To make a blanket claim that any one brand has better lenses cannot ever be substantiated. Some brands excel at a particular focal length and others dont. Given that Minolta made some of Leicas lenses, even more so no one could make that claim about their entire range.</p>

 

<p><em>"This lens is ok, it is tiny, well made, almost distortion free, sharp and fairly flare resistant. I have tested it against the 28/2.8 Biogon and the Biogon is sharper in the center, but not as sharp in the corners."</em></p>

<p>This is odd in that its opposite to my tests and most reviews I have read of the lens. The new ASPH Elmarit's strength is in the center being geared for an M8 crop factor and its at the corners that it is weaker than than the Biogon. In fact the Version 4 Elmarit is also superior in the corners than the new ASPH version. Its one of the compromises for price and size.</p>

<p>A someone has already mention 40.5mm filters are readily available but I can certainly appreciate the desire to standardize with 39mm. The 2 Rokkor 90's take 40.5 but the Elmar-C takes the even more oddball series 5.5. However, although not perfect it is 39mm with a different pitch. This means that a 39mm filter can screw in a couple of threads and hold the filter quite firm. If you dont force it on hard its a method that I have often used in this instance.</p>

<p><em>"Joel, it might seem premature to talk about field curvature, but a limited number of hand held photos is not necessary. One is enough. Look at the photo of the doll collection at"</em><br>

<em>-</em><br>

You may well turn out to be right but I think you do need more than one photo LOL. Tom freely admits his scanning technique is not always the best and also he has a prototype lens so I still honestly believe until production lenses are in the hands different owners with different scanner combinations that also arent all hand held its a bit soon to judge.</p>

<p><em>"In the case of the new CV lens, it has curvature of field according to some sample photos accessible on a post at rangefinderforum. My guess is that it will show some focus shift but I don't know how much."</em><br>

<em>-</em><br>

<em>"The Super Norkton is about as close as a super fast 50 has gone to an around lens in terms of rendition and weight. But it is simply not as good as that new Summilux."</em><br>

<em>-</em><br>

Sorry but without production lenses readily available and limited shots hand held only from the net I dont believe such bold claims can really be made right now. Simply not as good as the new Summilux? In theory most likely you are right Alex given the compromises of superfast lenses in the past but a definitive statement like that realistically cannot be made at this stage.</p>

<p>"Leica made a 90mm f/4 Elmar-C especially for the CLE. It's small, light, and sharp. People seem to feel that the CLE can handle focusing 90mm lenses down to f/2.8."</p>

<p>Um...... No they didnt actually. They made that lens for the Leica CL and a rebadged version for the Leitz Minolta CL. The CLE was a Minolta only affair to which they offered a similar 4 element design but a different Japanese made optic none the less.<br>

-<br>

Sherry has qualifications and experience with the CL not the CLE. She has looked at a few but isn't able to do much with them.<br>

-<br>

The CLE has 50% greater EFB than the CL for which the original 90mm f4 was designed. This permits the ability for the CLE to handle a 90mm f2.8. If anything its the minute 90mm framelines (well they arent even that just little corner marks) that detract from the greater use of 90mm lenses<br>

-<br>

Its a great camera and if everything is working fine then there is no reason why it would pack it in before you have extended use with it. Using it with 28mm lenses is terrific. I prefer it to an M7, its smaller and lighter and battery consumption is only a a fraction of the M7's. I certainly wouldn't recommend a Bessa as a replacement for one. You have to like 40mm lenses though over and above 50 and 35mm lenses, which I do so it makes it perfect for my needs. If you do prefer 35mm and 50mm then I would probably look at the Ikon.</p>

<p>The CLE will focus fine with a 90mm f2.8 but that is about its limit. The Compact TE certainly suits the CLE size wise but its one Leica lens I never liked. It flares quite badly and alot are prone to element separation and other problems. If you want a 2.8 then the slightly larger and later build Elmarit is the one to go for.</p>

<p><em>"Like Joel, I would like to have a lanyard with a shoe so I could wear it around my neck, as I use some cameras that don't have accessory shoes. If someone knows where to buy one please post."</em><br>

-<br>

Such an item was definitely available for the first meter. Here is a photo of mine. It came with a case and the meter would slip into the case with its strap through the base and you could put the whole thing around your neck. I cant see a reason why it wouldnt work with the 2nd version.<br>

<em><br /> </em></p><div></div>

<p>"Spitting distance, maybe, but out of the box it doesn't attain the same level of beauty and perfection of rendition IMO."<br>

-<br>

Well alot has to do with the photographer I think although I agree different lenses have different character. The worst wedding photos I ever saw were shot on a Leica so no amount of nice lens rendtition will ever help there. But I found that the perfection of Leica lenses as you put it werent as noticeable in their 21mm as in some other focal lengths. Having owned the pre-ASPH 21 Elmarit I found the Voigtlander to be the superior lens in falloff and resolution and it was so much smaller in comparison the Elmarit was sold off. I found the ASPH version to be a good lens but the gap in performance between 2.8 and f4 was huge. Although usable at 2.8 knowing how much it improved one stop down I found it would never use it wide open. As such If i had an f4 lens I may as well use something more compact and never purchased the ASPH. I think some need to get out of this mindset that all Voiglanders automatically achieve lesser results to any Leica lens. Some like the Heliar 50mm f3.5 and the 90 f4 are other examples of the line able to go head to head with their Leica counterparts. Unfortunaletly they arent consistant across their entire line but then again certain Leica lenses stand above others too.</p>